Probabilistic seismic safety study of an existing nuclear power plant

Kennedy, R.P.; Cornell, C. Allin; Campbell, Robert D.; Kaplan, Stan; Perla, H.F.

doi:10.1016/0029-5493(80)90203-4

Cited by 297 publications

(140 citation statements)

References 1 publication

Supporting

Mentioning

132

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…As a final remark, the results presented in this manuscript for the error between the closed-form solution for the annual rate of collapse and the direct numerical solution are also insightful toward the errors in the closed-form demand hazard solutions given in [7,12,29].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 72%

Error estimation of closed‐form solution for annual rate of structural collapse

Bradley

Dhakal

2008

Earthq Engng Struct Dyn

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

With the increasing emphasis of performance-based earthquake engineering (PBEE) in the engineering community, several investigations have been presented outlining simplified approaches suitable for performance-based seismic design (PBSD). Central to most of these PBSD approaches is the use of closed-form analytical solutions to the probabilistic integral equations representing the rate of exceedance of key performance measures. Situations where such closed-form solutions are not appropriate primarily relate to the problem of extrapolation outside of the region in which parameters of the closed-form solution are fit. This study presents a critical review of the closed form solution for the annual rate of structural collapse.The closed form solution requires the assumptions of lognormality of the collapse fragility and power model form of the ground motion hazard, of which the latter is more significant regarding the error of the closed-form solution. Via a parametric study, the key variables contributing to the error between the closed-form solution and solution via numerical integration are illustrated. As these key variables can not be easily measured it casts doubt on the use of such closed-form solutions in future PBSD, especially considering the simple and efficient nature of using direct numerical integration to obtain the solution. KEYWORDSPerformance-based seismic design (PBSD), performance-based earthquake engineering (PBEE), ground motion hazard, annual rate of collapse, deaggregation.2

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 72%

Error estimation of closed‐form solution for annual rate of structural collapse

Bradley

Dhakal

2008

Earthq Engng Struct Dyn

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…To determine the dispersion of all combined uncertainty and randomness, they are combined by root-sum-squares method [24] used in FEMA 350 [8,10]:…”

Section: Step 4: Incorporate Sources Of Variation Using Assumed Distrmentioning

confidence: 99%

Computational and rapid expected annual loss estimation methodologies for structures

Solberg

Dhakal

Mander

et al. 2007

Earthq Engng Struct Dyn

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

SUMMARYExpected annual loss (EAL), which can be expressed in dollars, is an effective way of communicating the seismic vulnerability of constructed facilities to owners and insurers. A simplified method for estimating EAL without conducting time consuming non-linear dynamic analyses is presented. Relationships between intensity measures and engineering demand parameters resulting from a pushover analysis and a modified capacity-spectrum method are combined with epistemic and aleatory uncertainties to arrive at a probabilistic demand model.Damage measures are established to determine thresholds for damage states from which loss ratios can be defined. Financial implications due to damage can then be quantified in the form of EAL by integrating total losses for all likely earthquake scenarios. This rapid loss estimation method is verified through the computationally intensive Incremental Dynamic Analysis, with results processed using a distribution-free methodology. To illustrate the application of the proposed method, the seismic vulnerability of two highway bridge piers is compared; one bridge is traditionally designed for ductility while the other is based on an emerging damage avoidance design (DAD) philosophy. The DAD pier is found to have a clear advantage over the conventional pier; the EAL of the DAD pier is less than 20 percent of its ductile counterpart. This is shown to be primarily due to its inherent damage-free behaviour for small to medium earthquake intensities, whose contribution to EAL is significantly more than that of very rare events.2

show abstract

“…The mathematical framework for evaluating frequencies of accident sequences of seismic PRA is based on the concept by Kennedy et al [1] and characterized as follows:…”

Section: Mathematical Framework Of Current Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Development of a New Mathematical Framework for Seismic Probabilistic Risk Assessment for Nuclear Power Plants – Plan and Current Status –

Muta

Muramatsu

Furuya

et al. 2016

Earthquakes, Tsunamis and Nuclear Risks

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

After the severe accident in Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Station, safety improvement and enhancement have been installed. In midterm and long term, continuous efforts to improve and enhance safety are required, and technical basis and fundamentals are needed to achieve them.Probabilistic Risk Assessment for seismic event (seismic PRA) is an effective measure to consider the countermeasures and improvement plans to secure the further safety of nuclear power plants regarding to seismic risk for the earthquake exceeding the design basis earthquake ground motion. However, the application of seismic PRA has not been utilized sufficiently so far. One of the reasons is that there is not enough agreement among stakeholders regarding to the evaluation methodology and consideration of uncertainty for decision-making.This study proposes the mathematic framework to treat the uncertainty properly related to the evaluation of core damage frequency (CDF) induced by earthquake, the methodology to evaluate the fragility utilizing expert knowledge, the probabilistic model to cope with the aleatory uncertainty as well as the development of analysing code including these considerations for the improvement of the reliability of the methodology and enhancement of utilization of the products of seismic PRA. This paper presents current status and some results from scoping calculations.

show abstract

Probabilistic seismic safety study of an existing nuclear power plant

Cited by 297 publications

References 1 publication

Error estimation of closed‐form solution for annual rate of structural collapse

Error estimation of closed‐form solution for annual rate of structural collapse

Computational and rapid expected annual loss estimation methodologies for structures

Development of a New Mathematical Framework for Seismic Probabilistic Risk Assessment for Nuclear Power Plants – Plan and Current Status –

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About